Loading...
PC MINS 19770628M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting June 28, 1977 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart. PRESENT: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart ABSENT: Blue Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planner Gary Weber, and Assistant Planner Keith Turner. MINUTES APPROVAL On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 14, 1977, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 5, change to read: Section 9614, B.2.a., delete "and 45�f_oot height of -higher."; page 2, -paragraph 11, should read "Re #6, Mr. McTaggart.....'"; page 7, para- graph 2, should read ".....of 4, 6, and 11."; and page 2 of Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 77-11 (P.C.), last paragraph, should read ".....within fif- teen (15) days....." On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 16, 1977, were approved with the following amendments: page 1, the date be changed to reflect the meeting was held June 16; page 1, paragraph 3, line 2, should read ' ...... permanent benchmark or other....."; same page and paragraph, lines 5 and 6, should read ".....or location. Any grading..... page 1, paragraph 7, should read "96611 C". On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the order of the agenda was changed by placing item D after item A, as item D was an older item than the others. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2 Director Hightower gave the background Grading Revisions of this item, stating that the last public hearing was held in October, with many work sessions since. She corrected the last line of page 9 and the first line of page 10 of the pro- posed ordinance as follows: should read "".....or subcontractor violates Section 96611 of Article IX.....". Staff recommends that after holding public hearing, the resolution be adopted. The public hearing was reopened. Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant, felt that the section referred to zn the correc- tion above should site either 96611 C. or D. and not the entire section as it now reads. He also had some questions re Section 9667 D.2.b. As there were no other speakers, the public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 77-12 (P.C.) including Exhibit "A"', as amended by the minutes and text. Mrs. Bacharach said she has been advised by the City Attorney that because she was not present during the original hearing, she should not vote on this item. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bacharach ABSENT: Blue GRADING APPLICATION NO. 152 Mr. Turner explained the background of 7447 Via Lorado this request, stating the item was Applicant: E. & B. Slauta last reviewed at the April 26, 1977, meeting, and that since that time the plans have been revised several times. He said the present concept responds to the Commission's concerns from the last meeting and proposes grading 1500 cubic yards for the structure, turn- around and access, which represents a reduction of 1300 cubic yards (470). He said there has been a 42% reduction of graded area also. He discussed the Code criteria and said there were two visible problems: -a driveway slope of 23% and inadequate turn -around area. Staff feels a solution would be the relocation of a retaining wall. Staff recommends approval with the above change and with other conditions as listed in the staff report. Keith White said the applicant accepts the staff recommendation with the solution presented for the additional grading and higher retaining wall. Public participation was closed. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, Grading Application No. 152 was approved subject to the following conditions: that the retaining wall be relocated (requiring an additional 155 cubic yards of grading) and increased in height; that the previously graded access road be restored to a natural appearing slope; and that a landscape plan which softens the effect of the visible retaining walls and identifies the native plant materials used be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33034 Mr. Weber explained that at the last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 24 meeting the Commission reached a con - End of Calle de Suenos sensus on the major issues and re - Applicant: Herb Angel (for quested further information on lia- Palos Verdes Properties) bility for the proposed pedestrian access easement and the review of a height limitation. He said staff contacted the City Attorney re liability and was told that while each case will vary, the primary liability is generally the responsibility of the person or agency that maintains the easement; in this instance, the home- owners association or the City. He said further review with the Public Works Director resulted in suggestions re surface treatment, landscaping, and lighting, as discussed in the staff report. Re structure heights, all of the proposed lots have the potential to block all or some portion of existing views. Staff recommends that all structures be governed by the 16 -foot height limit with a height variation if it is found they can con- form with the Code. Staff recommendation is that approval of the condi- tional use permit be granted subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution and that the tentative tract map be recommended for approval subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A" of the draft Council resolution. He said in addition to the letter received by staff prior to the start of the meeting, a letter was received late this afternoon, copies of which -were before the Commission. He further suggested that conditions 2 and 3 of Exhibit "A" for the conditional use permit be deleted, as further review indicates that since there are no structures proposed at this time, those conditions are impractical. Mr. Rosenberg asked if the Commission could approve a residential planned development for -lots only, and Mr. Weber said there is nothing in the Code to prohibit this. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern about the letter before them from John Alden, 30088 Avenida Tranquila, concerning fire regulations. Mr. Weber said to his knowledge the Fire Department establishes only guidelines, not regulations, concerning the maximum number of units and the length of cul- de-sacs. He said the Fire Department recommends the maximum length of streets be 700 feet, measured from intersection to intersection, and from intersection to end of cul-de-sac. Mr. McTaggart asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the project, and Mr. Weber said he has not except for the pedestrian access question. Mr. McTaggart read the letter received tonight from Shan Albert, 30543 - South Camino Porvenir, concerning views, financial and aesthetic issues, additional traffic, noise and pollution. P.C. MINUTES -2- 6/28/77 Herb Angel, 4373 Dauntless, said he agreed with the recommended staff condi- tions. Barr Ruston, 30009 Avenida Elegante, spoke on behalf of some of the neigh- bors, as follows: Margaret Walker, 30137 Avenida Tranquila, was opposed because the project will generate more traffic onto Crest Road; and Phillip Kraus, 7088 Crest Road, was opposed because the project will add to the traffic and hazards already existing on Crest Road. Speaking for himself, Mr. Ruston expressed concern that no traffic counts have been submitted. He also felt other alternatives should be reviewed for a road extension. He requested that the item be continued and returned to staff for further study. Joy Caswell, 3057 Camino Porvenir, expressed concern about the volume of traffic currently on Crest Road and the high number of near accidents lately, particularly concerning children. She said she has contacted the City Engi- neer several times during the past year concerning the pathway. Mr. McTaggart indicated on the plan where the easement would be, and said staff has advised the Commission that negotiations with other property owners for the easement are proceeding well. Mrs. Schubert Lamb, 6871 Crest Road, said she was opposed to further traffic on Crest Road, as there existed now a treacherous situation re the speed limit and that there was a petition going around now concerning this. She said there was another petition being circulated with reference to another exit, as she felt if there were aniextension it would alleviate some of the problems on Crest. Gary Schaumann, 30105 Avenida Espendida, chairman of the Monte Verde Home- owners Association, said he was also opposed because of the traffic. He felt alternatives should be considered. He asked about the progress of the negotiations re the pedestrian access easement and requested postponing this item until the pathway issue is completed. Director Hightower said the City does not yet have a deed for the access, but that the discussions have been amendblO; Mrs. Bacharach also pointed out that at the last meeting staff presented three alternatives for an extension of the street. Mary Cullen, 20621 Calle de Suenos, said she did not wish to have the pro- posed walkway going past her property because of the noise and litter problems. She also asked about the alternatives presented at the last meeting for an extension. Mr. Rosenberg explained that none of the alternatives discussed at the last meeting were feasible, and that at this point the Commission does not feel they have a viable alternative. Dale Cross, 30540 Camino Porvenir, also expressed concern about the traffic problem and view obstruction. He indicated on the plan where he felt view obstruction would occur concerning his home. He asked why the homes could not be built down the hill. Mr. McTaggart explained that the applicant could not develop down the hill because of the steep slope and geologic conditions. Re view obstruction, he said there is a 16 -foot height limit and also the Commission can deter- mine site location. He further explained that the Commission has been told by the City Attorney that it is not advisable to put a road through or allow a road to be developed on property which is not developable. Also if appli- cation is made and the land is developable, the City must allow development. He said they allow traversing 35%+ slopes only if there is no other way for access. Bill Mulligan, 30520 Camino Porvenir, said he would like Mr. Alden's letter to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Ruston requested that Mr. Alden's letter be read aloud. As an alter- native, he suggested flipping the cul-de-sac (Calle de Suenos) 180 degrees to come out on Hawthorne Boulevard. P.C. MINUTES -3- 6/28/77 • 0 The public hearing was closed, and Mr. McTaggart read Mr. Alden's letter to the audience. Mr. Rosenberg said he was very concerned about dealing with a residential planned development of lots only when it has been established that there will be some view obstruction. He said in the past they have obtained a plan indicating the layout, and have suggested moving lot lines to help minimize view obstruction. He said they have no idea where the placement of the structures will be, and he felt (if they approve the tentative tract map) that without that information, they are removing one of their own tools out of their hands. He felt a specific plan for structure placement and a grading plan should be submitted. He also felt that if the Development Code permits this approach, it should be changed. Mr. McTaggart shared those concerns. Director Hightower said there is nothing in the Code which prohibits ap- proving lots only and that conditions include setback restrictions. She said a grading plan has been submitted for the road only; and that there would be a bond re the common area and for the pathway. She said if the Commission wishes a time limit, they could make that one of the conditions. Mrs. Bacharach suggested placing the pathway between lots 10 and 11 of the proposed project since there was an objection to having it beside one of the existing homes adjacent to the project. Mr. McTaggart said he would like to see something in writing from the adjacent property owners re the easement before the Commission considers this because a big plus would be a reduction in traffic, as the children would not have to be driven to the schools. Mr. Rosenberg felt that even though the developer was not going to build the structures himself, they should still review and indicate the actual building site on the lot, include all grading required for the building site except the final grading, and make sure that the actual building site will be placed in such a manner on the lot to minimize view obstruction. He felt the application should be returned to the applicant for considera- tion of these items. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to return Tenta- tive Tract Map No. 33034 to the applicant for inclusion of specific build- ing sites and revision of the grading application to include rough grading for the building sites. Mr. McTaggart was not sure about requiring specific building sites because the person buying the lot would be limited to what could be built. He said he would rather see a view plane analysis with the degree of obstruc- tion with setbacks as allowed and an alternative. Mr. Rosenberg felt the lots were large enough to not cause that problem and would allow a structure to be placed in such a manner as to minimize any view impact. Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Blue Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, that the easement be moved to within the gated development area between the lots and be coordinated with the extension. Mr. Hughes said he would rather recommend ample buffering between the ease- ment and adjacent properties rather than requiring it to be built speci- fically within the tract, as the developer would not be restricted from other alternatives. Mrs. Bacharach felt that buffering may cause view obstruction to existing residences. She also pointed out that if it was within the new develop- ment, the owners would be aware of the easement and the buffering prior to purchasing the lots. P.C. MINUTES -4- 6/28/77 Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: Hughes ABSENT: Blue Re the conditional use permit resolution, Mr. Rosenberg said he could not vote on Section 6 because the Commission has never been informed of the State and local guidelines re CEQA. Director Hightower said it is up to the Environmental Committee to finalize the environmental impact report, but that the decision making body must certify it. Mr. McTaggart felt they should table the item until they have reviewed the CEQA guidelines. Director Hightower said staff would provide them. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the original motion was amended to include continuation of Condi- tional Use Permit No. 24 also. Mr. McTaggart asked if the applicant would be ready in two weeks. Mr. Angel said they would be prepared for that meeting with a plan indicating pad location with elevations and footprints, and a rough grading plan. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, Tentative Tract Map No. 33034 and Conditional Use Permit No. 24 were tabled until the meeting of July 12, and that Mr. Alden's letter be forwarded to the City Attorney. Mr. McTaggart also asked staff to try to track down the minutes from the Regional Planning Commission. RECESS At 9:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:13 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32744 Director Hightower explained that this CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 item had been continued from the April Porto Verde Apartments 4th public hearing and that since that Applicant: Porto Verde Assoc. time, the applicant has had sound tests (E: -L.. Pearson) made and has investigated and responded to various structural complaints. She discussed the major Code standards and how the proposed project does and does not comply, as stated in the staff report. She discussed the five considerations as listed in the staff report concerning General Plan policies, Coastal Commission guidelines, refurbish- ing, validating the financial feasibility, and guarantees for tenants. She also presented additional information on the City-wide housing mix. She said the Commission should decide whether the project should proceed in con- cept or be denied. If approved in concept, additional information should be required on tenant rights, preliminary maintenance costs and operation, more precise proposal for recreational area, and the effects of 3-phase sales. John Tretheway, representing the applicant, discussed the major standards as described in the staff report, saying nothing could be done about the age of the building; re parking, they are now proposing 461 on-site parking spaces (517 required) and felt some of the spaces on the street should be considered as feasible for guest parking; re open space areas, only 20 units will be without private open space; re tenant rights, those will be controlled by the Department of Real Estate, adding that the proposal is to not only give the first right to purchase their own units, but first right to purchase -any other unit prior to outside buyers; re financial feasibility, he said the Department of Real Estate requires short term ex- penses and long term expenses; re General Plan policies and the Coastal Commission, he pointed out these are now the highest priced rental units in the area and would be converted to the lowest priced "own you own" units in the area; re how much refurbishing, the applicant has pledged a minimum of $500,000 plus $200,000 for the plumbing. He said they received a bid for $137,000 for the plumbing, but the applicant would still rather put the P.C. MINUTES -5- 6/28/77 money into the fund. He said since the last meeting, what was estimated as a 4-5 year rain occured and certain areas of the building flooded. He said the building has been re -roofed but water is seeping in somewhere. He said they don't know what the problem is, but are working on solving it and will resolve this problem prior to the conversion. He said the appli- cant was willing to go whichever way the Commission wished concerning car- peting, etc. Joseph Villia, #56, said he was one of the oldest tenants, having lived there six years, and was in favor of the conversion as it would enable young people the opportunity to purchase a home which is affordable. Arthur Bullock, #213, felt what was not available in the area is an "own your own" home for the price offered here. John O'Connell said private ownership will offer stability and better pro- tection against vandalism. He said he is nearing retirement and this would be a good investment. Jerry Knotten, #70, felt the conversion was a good idea as long as the prob- lems can be solved and the homeowners association adequately funded. He said there area number of people who are interested and agreed it would add stability to the area and eliminate the transient atmosphere. B. Farretty, #106, wondered what type of protection there would be for the tenants who might consider buying a unit. She also expressed concern about water proofing the building and said the leakage problem has existed for a long time. Dave Howe, #59, said he has lived there four years and was not opposed, but had several concerns as follows: for how long would the pliimbing repair estimate be good; if the work would be done under some sort of warranty; and will the future owners be able to re -sell the property if they wish. Odis Tabler asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the Code violations as mentioned at the last meeting. Director Hightower said he has not because there was nothing that comes under his direction. Mr. Tabler cited Sections 9622, 9652, and 9685 of the Development Code and Sections 803, 809 B.2. and 808 of the Los Angeles County Health Code as being violated by the applicant. He renewed his request to have the City Attorney review these sections. He stated several times that he felt the applicant and his representatives have been lying to the Commission on various points. He said Buelah Hunter, whose apartment was flooded many times, was in the audience to verify what he was saying, and was present when the Health Department inspector cited the building. He said on Mother's Day about 18 apartments were flooded and that the building was a health hazard and a nuisance and the Code states that the City must resolve these problems. He submitted pictures of evidence of the flooding, of the door propped open around the overflowing garbage, and of Mrs. Hunter's re- curring flooding. He also submitted a plumbing fixture from his apartment which broke down a couple weeks ago. Stewart Belnap, #312, said he was an engineer and that the sound testing concerned him. He asked if the results were certified by anyone or checked by staff. He questioned the finding that the floor meets the requirements for condominiums. Director Hightower said the test was performed by a reputable firm with whom the City has dealt before. John Farraday, #106, said there is a sound problem with the garage doors, footsteps from kitchen and dining rooms, as well as carpeted areas, and radios. He said most of the sound comes from the floor above. Mr. Tretheway-said the sound report indicates that to meet the sound re- quirements (above and below), the applicant must have an upgrading in car- peting. Mrs. Bacharach asked if the pro3ected selling price would still be the same. P.C. MINUTES -6- 6/28/77 Mr. Tretheway said the rent has gone up, but the homes will still be sold for an average of $45,000. Carol Davis asked about the procedure for making a deposit for the purchase of one of theAln-it.'s and if the deposit could be refunded at any time. Mr. Tretheway explained that no deposit could be taken until the -applicant receives a pink slip from the Department of Real Estate, and that units cannot actually be sold until he receives the white slip. If the white slip is not received or if prior to receiving it someone changes their mind, the deposit would be refunded. Director Hightower pointed out that if approved, the Commission can place conditions on the project that work be completed within a specified time period prior to sale of the units. Jack Spahn, E. L. Pearson, said the Department of Real Estate requires not only the conditional use permit and tentative tract map approval but other information as well. Mr. Tabler said that the findings in granting a conditional use permit re- quire conditions and limitations to protect the health, safety, and general welfare. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the considerations as listed in the staff report. Re General -Plan policies, the Commission discussed trade-offs and whether the housing mix should be considered on a City basis or a regional basis. Mr. Rosenberg said there are rental units reasonably close to the'City limits on both sides. Mrs. Bacharach pointed out that if other cities convert their rentals to condominiums, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has no control to stop them, and therefore should not consider those units for the housing mix. Mr. McTaggart agreed, but said most condominiums are about 25-30% rental units after sale. He said the Commission must determine whether it is desirable for the City to retain the multiples Mr. Hughes felt in the broad scope, there will still be a large number of units which will end up being rental units. Re Coastal Commission guidelines Director Hightower said this should be only a consideration and not a limitation on the Commission. Mr. McTaggart felt that the Coastal Commission would realize that the City does not contain low income housing. Mr. Tretheway said these guidelines were adopted in May and that every project is looked at for its own merits. He pointed out that this project would get low -moderate housing on the coastline. Mr. McTaggart did not feel this consideration is a factor, as the Planning Commission must consider whether they feel there is adequate parking, etc., not whether the Coastal Commission will think so. Re refurbishing, Mr. Rosenberg said this would be part of the conditions of approval. Mr. McTaggart wondered if the plumbing bid included the mains outside the building. If so, the water for the whole building would be shut off and the residents would have to be displaced. He also felt a guarantee was important. He asked if the applicant owned the land proposed for recrea- tional facilities. Mr. Tretheway said no, but that it was a certainty that he would. Mr. McTaggart said he witnessed the sound testing done on the Ocean Terraces and disapproved of the method used. He wondered if the same method was used for Porto Verde and noted that he had requested to be present during the testing. P.C. MINUTES -7- 6/28/77 Mr. Tretheway said he notified Director Hightower to see if she wished to be present, but did not recall Mr. McTaggart's request. Mr. Rosenberg said he had previously asked for a specific list of items that the applicant hoped to accomplish and the projected costs. He felt it would now be helpful. Re the parking, the Commission reached a consensus that there was no prob- lem with on -street parking. Re sound transmission, Mr. McTaggart requested verification on where re- Lwt. irrT has to be done, and felt the Commission, if. it approves the pro- ject, should require that bene is brought up to standards. In response to a question, Mr. Tretheway said the owner is not committed to converting it all to family units or leaving it as is, and that if it was an important factor, they would go either way. Re private open space, Mr. McTaggart did not feel that the project was in substantial conformance with the Code, as there are 20 units without any private open space, about 10% of the project. He felt the applicant should attempt to come up with a proposal which meets the objectives and provides some kind of private open space for each unit. Mr. Tretheway said they could designate a section of the terrace covered garages for each of the 20 units, or restrict a portion of the recreational land for their use. Mrs. Bacharach said no one condition is enough for denial, but that all of them together constitutes a lot of deficiencies: the parking, the private open space, the elimination of rental units from the coastline, and so on. Mr. McTaggart expressed concerns with children -living in the stacked units and the plumbing. He felt if the applicant was able to overcome some of the deficiencies with the private open space and restrict the adult section to adults, he did not feel the parking was a major problem. Mr. Rosenberg agreed and said there was nothing which requires open space areas to be attached to the units, but that it should be convenient. Mr. Tretheway said they would attempt to solve this problem and asked if the Commission could approve in concept subject to certain conditions being accomplished. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, that the Commission gives its consensus to approve the project in concept with the understanding that the applicant will make whatever mitigation measures are necessary to provide for the required private open space for those 20 units now desig- nated without any; that the plumbing and all water piping be brought into conformance as part of the conversion process; that the necessary CC&Rs be written so as to require the separation of family and adult units, as they now exist; that an itemized list of mitigating deferred maintenance items be submitted and the projected cost; and that a plan for the accom- plishment of refurbishing as it concerns the displacement of people, either temporarily or otherwise, be presented. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: Bacharach ABSENT: Blue Mr. Tretheway asked if the Commission meant changing to copper plumbing prior to sale, and Mr. McTaggart said yes, that is the intent of theed -n=a4Voe. rnd �c:o-,vim RECESS At 1:15 a.m, a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 1:20 a.m. with the same members present. P.C. MINUTES -8= 6/28/77 411 411 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 33358 Mr. Weber stated that after the last CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25 public hearing on this item, revised SE corner of Palos Verdes Drive plans were submitted and the number of South & Seahill Drive dwelling units was reduced from 21 to Applicant: Mercury Enterprises 20, modifications were made which cor- (for Western Brass Dev. ) rect previously identified setback en- croachments, and there were changes in the roadway design. While these revi- sions require modifications to the grading plan, none are considered major. He said a major staff concern involves conflict with performance criteria for the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District, as stated in the pre- vious staff report. He said this portion of the Code is intended to help "preserve, protect, and maintain" areas of significant visual impact. He explained that a view analysis shows that the project would block all of the glancing vista to a full focal point (Catalina Island) and a portion of the glancing vista to a partial focal point (east end of Catalina) . Staff suggests that the Commission review the vista question, as well as others throughout the coastal area and base a decision on the determination of the overall significance of the view. Another issue which relates to the visual character is that of tennis court lighting, and Mr. Weber said he has not seen a detailed lighting plan. Literature supplied by the applicant indi- cates no readable light at 25 feet from the perimeter without shielding, and no light spillage at all with shielding. While there would be no ad- verse glare of illumination (with shielding) , the presence of lights will be noticed by near residents and from Palos Verdes Drive South. He said during a discussion re church access, it was indicated that the applicant would consider such a request on the condition that the City be liable for all damage suits, and that the applicant would discuss this item further during his presentation. Staff recommends that after public hearing, the Commission reach a consensus on major issues. The public hearing was reopened. Corwin Eberting, architect, 30324 Via Victoria, said the tennis courts have been moved back ten feet and angled at the corners, one of the units has been eliminated to allow a view corridor, and one access has been eliminated and the exits revised. Re view impact, he said these are one story garages in the front and are well below the street and they have lowered the entire profile. He said there is 32 feet to the garage door to allow swing-around and there would be garage door openers. He said there are ten additional parking places outside of the 32-foot drive. George Eastom, 28035 Ambergate Drive, said the church has right-of-way over unpaved land, but that can be revoked at any time. He said this could be a major problem if this were used as a public street through this pri- vate development. Mr. Rosenberg felt the church access was not a major concern at this time and should be discussed later. Mrs. Bacharach asked about an archaeological analysis, and Mr. Weber said the applicant indicated that the archaeologist was on the site today and a written report was forthcoming. She also suggested that when the Commis- sion does discuss church access, they should have a plan available showing the church site. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Rosenberg said he felt uncomfortable not knowing what else was planned for the land adjacent to this site. Mr. McTaggart said he was very concerned about the tennis court, and did not feel there was any way to light it (even with proper shielding) and not affect the Bay Club. He felt there was no way to mitigate this situa- tion. He was also concerned about the perimeter parking lot. He felt this situation would be undesirable to buyers. Mr. Rosenberg asked if there were alternative layouts. Mr. McTaggart said he would prefer the swimming pool on the other side of the courts. P.C. MINUTES -9- 6/28/77 Mrs. Bacharach felt the view corridor (through elimination of one of the units) was insignificant, as people would have to stop to observe the view when driving by. She felt the church access may also affect the de- sign of the project and therefore should be discussed in the beginning. Mr. Rosenberg felt there should be a different type of clustering in order to reduce the visual impact from Palos Verdes Drive South and retain some of the vistas. He felt if the tennis courts were moved to the=corner, the church access would not impact any of the new residences. Mr. Hughes felt the project was not responsive to the site, particularly the impact on the Drive. The consensus of the Commission was that they were not happy with the proposal and wished to see some alternative and would like to know what is going in next to the site. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, to table the item until the applicant comes back with some other plans for review based on the Commission's comments tonight. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Hughes, Rosenberg, McTaggart NOES: None ABSENT: Blue COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Bacharach would like to discuss the array size of antennas at the next work session on Jtly 7. Re Porto Verde, Mrs. Bacharach said during review of the Coastal Specific Plan, they have been discussing transferring density to that site which is proposed as recreational land in the condominium conversion request. Director Hightower said staff would have a sketch at the next Coastal Plan work session of that area. Mr. McTaggart asked if the City Attorney has responded to the Rein Kuhr issue from the last meeting. Director Hightower said the City Attorney was still out of town at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 2:20 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Thursday, July 7, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. P.C. MINUTES -10- 6/28/77